Estimate delivery success/return rate and typical delivery time for a destination wilaya in Algeria (region-based network estimate).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wilaya | Yes | Destination wilaya: slug, name or number (e.g. "oran", "Alger", "31"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about estimating success/return rate and typical delivery time, which aligns with annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No extraneous words; every part contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description hints at output (success/return rate, typical time) but lacks specificity on format or structure. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is adequate but could be more explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (wilaya parameter well-described with examples). The description reiterates 'destination wilaya' but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Estimate') and resource ('delivery success/return rate and typical delivery time') for a specific location (Algerian wilaya). It is distinct from siblings like order_risk and cod_profit, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for delivery estimation but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. No alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a specific function with clear boundaries. No two tools overlap in purpose.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_product, delete_product), but some are noun_noun (cod_profit, order_risk) and 'publish' is a bare verb, causing minor inconsistency.
12 tools cover product management, store creation, search, and analytics without being overwhelming. The count feels right for the domain.
Missing essential operations like listing products, reading product details, updating stores, or managing orders. Gaps hinder core workflows.
